German Shepherds Forum banner

21 - 36 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,924 Posts
I do pediatric spay/neuters on any animal I adopt out - it's the only responsible way to do rescue as you just can't rely on contracts to enforce getting it done. I worked for a shelter that at first did contracts until they did early speuters and I DID see litters coming in produced by pets that were adopted from us. OR puppies being returned as adults that had never been fixed at all in all the years their people had owned them. So I just do not trust the general public to obey a piece of paper that says they need to get it done. And I definitely do not trust them to be able to handle an intact pet without having a litter result.

For my own pets I have altered at 6 mos or a little later. All of mine are fixed now except for Ursa and I'm leaning towards delaying her spay until she is an adult. I do feel I can prevent an oops litter even if we go through a heat cycle or two - if one does happen (very small chance of that) then I fully support spay/abort and would do so. Just would like to see if she gains anything from delaying the spay till later.

I have had no problems with any of my own and the only foster that ever had a problem was one who was born with an inverted vulva. Spayed her early anyway even though it was mentioned that a heat cycle or two would help "pop" it out - her adopter opted instead to have her vet surgically pop it out and that has worked perfectly.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,306 Posts
Originally Posted By: CKYou know I just lost the best sheppy ever due to spay incontienance and a butcher that called himself a vet. I will never spay a dog again.
Had I not spayed my girl she'd have died only after the painful experience of her uterus bursting inside her. Is that not a good reason to spay?

I'm not saying spaying/neutering at 4-6 months is always the right thing to do (Except when it comes to rescues adopting out dogs or incredibly stupid/irresponsible pet owners) but for your average pet owner there is NO reason they should keep their animal intact for life. If the dog isn't healthy enough to be put under anesthesia then I understand keeping the dog intact but for your average companion pet, there is NO reason to not desex a healthy dog IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,204 Posts
Cisco (GSD X BC) was spayed at 9mo - after her early heat and false pregnancy had finished - she was PTS exactly 6 weeks short of her 17th birthday. This is a lot longer than the normal expected life expectancy.

Many dogs do not live a normal lifespan due to mammary and testicular cancers. But there are many intact dogs who do live a long life. Not everyone can or will manage an intact dog resulting in the perPETuating problem of many euthanised dogs.

You can prove(?) any point of view if you choose the relevant set of statistics - Lies, damned lies, and statistics ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,209 Posts
im not sure the methodology used in that study is sound or that the sample sizes are statistically large enough. even if i dont think the conclusions reached are sound, i would still be open in the future to alternative methods to preventing pregnancy.

for me, an early spay was done because i believe the data on mammary cancer is quite convincing. any alternative methods currently available would not provide an answer to this problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
379 Posts
Quote:Rottweilers who kept their ovaries for at least 6 years were 4.6 times more likely to reach exceptional longevity
I actually don't believe it whatsoever! From a scientific stand point I don't see HOW they can make that conclusion based on such a small population and so little information. I read through their study. There is a million and one other things that could explain the longer life. I also wonder how healthy these 'longer lived' bitches are.

Also, the most common cause of death for ALL dogs is euthanasia more than any other disease. If more dogs were spayed or neutered ALOT of dogs would live a much longer, happier life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
797 Posts
I am glad Jessie beat the odds. She was spayed at 6 months, has never had any health problem in her life, and will be 12 next month. She has just in the last few months started showing her age.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,742 Posts
Originally Posted By: gshephlvr
This quote really ticked me off "I'm all for keeping the overpopulation of pets down but early spay/neuters are NOT the right way."

it is exactly the right way. Look at the states that the rescues do pediatric, that the HSUS does pediatric and I will guarantee you that state has less of an overpopulation problem in general. Spay/neuter contracts dont work. I would like to know if the people who feel this way do rescue and really see all the oops litters. No better way to stop animals from getting pregnant then to remove their reproductive organs.
HSUS is an Animal Rights organization and everything they do or say should is pretty much just propaganda to further their agenda (which is to greatly restrict the ownership of pets and end pet breeding as we know it). They also don't run operate any of their own shelters.

The whole idea of "overpopulation due to too many litters" being the issue with shelter pets originated with the AR movement. Most shelters are not full of unwanted litters of puppies but "teenage" and adult dogs who for one reason or another lost their home. That isn't a problem that will be solved by spaying and neutering. I can pretty much guarantee you it can't be because of my involvement in ferrets. 95% of the ferret population in the US is altered before they are sold (before their eyes are open really). This has not at all prevented ferret shelters from remaining constantly full or overfull. The problem isn't overpopulation, the problem is owners not committing to the pets they are bringing home. But worse, it has caused a lot of suffering for the ferrets, who develop alter-related health issues.

It is absurd to defend early spaying and neutering being "for the greater good" when it puts the animals it is supposedly helping at much greater risk for health problems.

Responsible owners are responsible owners regardless of the status of their animals reproductive organs. My family owned nothing but intact male dogs while I was growing up. We had three together at one time and were "just pet owners". One of those dogs was a mixed breed that we neutered at about 4 years old and the other was a collie who was neutered around 6 (I regretted it with both). The oldest of the group was a setter who lived to be 15 and was never neutered. None of those three dogs sired an unwanted litter (or any litter for that matter). We were responsible pet owners and the dogs were not allowed to roam, pretty simple.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,483 Posts
I don't know where you're getting your info but the shelters here ARE full of puppies and kittens. TONS of them and there's a direct relationship between S/N and the number of animals in shelters. If you go to our counties where there is no low cost S/N available there are overflowing shelters. If you go to an area with a strong culture of S/N the shelters are much less overcrowded. Yes, there are factors that go along with a culture of S/N that could be contributing as well, but even within a given community, if you look at the shelter stats before and after the implementation of a strong S/N program, you can see the impact in shelter intake. There is most certainly a relationship. The problem with ferrets is totally different and not at all analogous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,742 Posts
Originally Posted By: Qyn Many dogs do not live a normal lifespan due to mammary and testicular cancers. But there are many intact dogs who do live a long life. Not everyone can or will manage an intact dog resulting in the perPETuating problem of many euthanised dogs.
Actually testicular cancer is not common in dogs and can be addressed by neutering the dog is it develops. Prostate cancer is much more common and neutered dogs are at a much greater risk for it.

This is an article outlining health risk and benefits of spaying and neutering, compiling data from over 50 peer reviewed studies. Anyone who is interested in the factual risks/benefits of altering, instead of the PC view that "spay/neuter makes dogs happier and healthier" may want to read it. In fact, even if you believe the PC view that altering only does good you still may want to read it. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cach...Gu3O3xHy2D2nHEA
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,483 Posts
That article has been posted on this board many times before. It's got some good info in it although it's really better if people can read the actual studies instead of depending on someone else's interpretation of them. Interestingly enough, in spite of the fact that the author is often a public opponant of S/N, on page 9 even she concedes that the benefits of spaying may very well outweigh any risks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,742 Posts
Originally Posted By: pupresq I don't know where you're getting your info but the shelters here ARE full of puppies and kittens.
Kittens are a bit of a different story, since there are far more feral and free roaming cats than dogs. It is interesting that you have so many more puppies than adult dogs in your shelters though. I have never heard of that being the case anywhere. I live between a dead city and a rural county (not exactly a progressive place) and the still shelter here has more demand for puppies than they have puppies to place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,742 Posts
Originally Posted By: pupresqThat article has been posted on this board many times before. It's got some good info in it although it's really better if people can read the actual studies instead of depending on someone else's interpretation of them. Interestingly enough, in spite of the fact that the author is often a public opponant of S/N, on page 9 even she concedes that the benefits of spaying may very well outweigh any risks.
I don't think the author "opposes S/N" but rather supports owners making an informed choice about the matter. And an informed choice may mean that the dog should remain intact.

Originally Posted By: gshephlvr

Sometimes I love this forum but the upswing in anti spay/neuter threads in here make me want to poke my eyes out with a dull stick.
Do you see posting information that there are risks involved with spaying and neutering to be "anti-S/N"?

You know, poking your eyes out with a dull stick would prevent you from suffering eye disorders later in life
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,483 Posts
We have tons of puppies as well as adult dogs but the majority of dogs and puppies both are being surrendered because of overpopulation issues not anything else. We see tons of female dogs given up because their owners are tired of dealing with the contant litters and lots of dogs who are the products of unwanted litters given away casually. And of course the hundreds of puppies and kittens that come in as litters themselves.

Where are you specifically? The situation in some parts of OH is considerably better than the southeast, but it's still pretty bad in lots of areas with supply of dogs (including puppies) far exceeding demand.

What I find ironic, is that areas with successful S/N campaigns are now being used as evidence that such campaigns aren't necessary.

Like I say, go to any area without accessible S/N and you will find overflowing shelters that are having to euthanize puppies because there are more dogs than homes. Direct relationship. It's not the only factor but it's a huge one.
 
21 - 36 of 36 Posts
Top